US 10110725

US Patent 10110725, titled "Method and system for communication," was issued to Messageloud Inc. [cite: Original Assignee: Messageloud LLC, Current Assignee: Messageloud Inc]. The sole inventor listed is Garin Toren. The application was filed on January 31, 2017, and the patent was granted and published on October 23, 2018.

Abstract:
The patent describes a computer-implemented method and system for delivering text messages, emails, and messages from messenger applications to a user while they are engaged in an activity such as driving, exercising, or working. The system announces and reads messages aloud to the user without requiring user input. In "Drive Mode," a simplified interface is displayed, and the user can hear messages and use gestures to operate the phone without looking at the screen. Upon receipt of a new message, the user is audibly informed of the sender, and typically, the message body and/or subject is read aloud if no further action is taken by the user. All messages can be placed in a single queue and read in order of receipt.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

The patent includes several independent claims for both methods and systems.

Method Claims:

• Claim 1: This claim describes a method where, without any user input, an arrival of a text message, email, or messenger application message is detected while the user is engaged in an activity. The user is then informed, again without input, that a message has arrived from a sender. The method then either allows the user time to stop the message from being read aloud (and reads it if no stop action is taken) or allows the user time to command the message to be read aloud (and reads it if a command is received).
• Claim 7: This method involves running an application to deliver messages while a user is engaged in an activity. The application, without user input, determines a message has arrived and analyzes its content. It then informs the user (without user input) of the sender. Similar to Claim 1, it proceeds by either reading the message aloud if no affirmative action to stop is received, or reading it aloud if an affirmative action to command reading is received.
• Claim 14: This method focuses on emails specifically. It determines, without user input, that an email has arrived, and informs the user aloud of the sender's identity. It allows the user time to take an action to stop the subject and body from being read aloud, and if no such action is received, it reads the subject and body aloud.
• Claim 16: This method is similar to Claim 14 but specifies that an application is running to deliver the email while the user is engaged in an activity. It includes the steps of the application determining, analyzing, and informing without user input, and then allowing time for affirmative action to stop or, by default, reading aloud the subject and body.
• Claim 17: This method is a refinement of email delivery, specifically when the user is driving a vehicle. It includes determining, analyzing, and informing the user aloud of the sender's identity without displaying information on the screen. It allows for an affirmative action to stop reading the subject and body, and if no such action is taken, reads them aloud, also without displaying information on the screen.
• Claim 18: This method pertains to handling either text messages or emails. It determines, without user input, that a message has arrived and analyzes its content. It then places the message in a single queue to be read aloud in order of receipt, regardless of message type. The user is informed aloud of the sender, allowed time to stop reading, and if no action is taken, the message (and subject for emails) is read aloud.

System Claims:

• Claim 26: This claim describes a mobile phone system. It includes one or more processors, memory, and programs. These programs instruct the device to determine, without user input, that a text message, email, or messenger application message has arrived while the user is engaged in an activity. The system then analyzes the message content, informs the user aloud of the sender's identity, and allows time for the user to stop the body from being read. If no stop action is received, the body is read aloud.
• Claim 27: This claim describes a system for delivering messages and emails to a user engaged in an activity, comprising a processor, memory, and a touch screen. The system runs an application to deliver messages, determines arrival without user input, analyzes content, and informs the user aloud of the sender. It allows time for an affirmative action to stop reading the message body, and if no action is taken, reads the message body aloud.
• Claim 29: This claim describes a system with a processor, memory, and touch screen, configured to deliver one or more of a text message, email, or messenger application message while the user is engaged in an activity. It specifically includes:
  • A queue notification module for placing messages in a single queue for posting.
  • An analyzer module for analyzing message content without user input.
  • A text-to-speech module configured to inform the user by voice of the sender's identity and, if no affirmative action to stop is received, to read the message body aloud.

Non-Transitory Computer Readable Storage Medium Claim:

• Claim 30: This claim covers a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores programs. When these programs are executed by an electronic device with a processor and memory, they cause the device to perform any of the methods described in claims 1-25.

Legal Status and Litigation:
The patent is currently listed as "Active" with an anticipated expiration date of September 25, 2035. The Google Patents entry for US10110725 also indicates "Family has litigation," with several related court cases and an IPR (Inter Partes Review) case filed in 2025. Specifically, IPR2025-01427 was filed and is listed as "Procedural Termination," and US cases were filed in the Texas Western District Court (case 6:25-cv-00185) and Texas Eastern District Court (case 2:25-cv-00486). [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10110725/en]

Regarding CAFC 2026 dockets specifically for US patent 10110725, a search of CAFC 2026 dockets did not return any direct results mentioning this specific patent number. The search results provided general information about other patent-related cases decided by the CAFC in 2026 but did not list any dockets or decisions specifically involving US10110725. Therefore, authoritative information on CAFC 2026 dockets for this patent is not available from the conducted search.

I'll search litigation databases for US patent 10110725.

Let me get more detail on the Samsung case and check for additional suits.

Let me check the Samsung case outcome and confirm whether any other defendants were sued on this patent.

Litigation Involving US Patent 10,110,725

Scope note: I searched patent-litigation aggregators (Justia Dockets, UniCourt, Stanford NPE Litigation Database, Ex Parte AI-Lab, and the PTAB/Unified Patents materials surfaced through PTACS). US 10,110,725 has been asserted in two known district court actions — both brought by MessageLoud, Inc. — and has been the subject of one related PTAB petition (Apple's IPR2025-01427). No other defendants or cases naming this patent appeared.

Important context: the '725 patent is one of five sibling patents asserted together in each case. The same five patents appear as Exhibits A–E in both complaints: US 9,591,117; US 10,110,725; US 10,277,728; US 10,516,775; and US 11,316,964.

Case 1 — MessageLoud, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2025cv00185/1172839254 ; https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/[299849](/patent/299849) ; https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-caseguc7f0aae3c832-[2098405](/patent/2098405) ; Patsnap Eureka case summary (https://www.patsnap.com/fr/resources/blog/litigation/messageloud-inc-v-apple-notification-audio-patent-dispute-dismissed-patsnap-eureka/) ; and the W.D. Tex. dismissal order text reproduced in PTAB Exhibit 1020 (Paper filed in IPR2025-01427), https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558369](/patent/1558369)/download-documents

Case 2 — MessageLoud, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv00486/[237716](/patent/237716) ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:25-cv-00486/messageloud-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:25-cv-00486/doc/analysis/1

Related PTAB proceeding (not district court litigation, but part of the same dispute)

Apple Inc. v. MessageLoud, Inc., IPR2025-01427 — U.S. Patent No. 10,110,725

• Petitioner: Apple Inc. (Goldberg, Joshua, et al.)
• Patent Owner: MessageLoud, Inc. (Kolmykov, Sergey, et al.)
• Filed: August 29, 2025
• Status: Terminated — "Termination Decision: Dismissal Prior to Institution of Trial, 35 U.S.C. § 314." No institution decision, no Final Written Decision.
• Why it ended: Apple and MessageLoud filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss (Dec. 3, 2025) after MessageLoud dismissed the parallel W.D. Tex. Apple case; Apple's exhibits included the Nov. 3, 2025 dismissal order (Ex. 1020). The Board authorized dismissal on Dec. 1, 2025.
• Apple filed companion petitions on the sibling patents — IPR2025-01426, -01428, -01429, and -01430 — all of which were included in the same Joint Motion to Dismiss request.

Source: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-01427 ; https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558368](/patent/1558368)/download-documents

⚠️ Contradiction to flag: The earlier-generated "PTAB challenges" section of this analysis states IPR2025-01427 was "procedurally terminated on 2026-04-14." The IPVerse PTAB record for IPR2025-01427 lists the termination date as February 23, 2026. The joint motion was filed Dec. 3, 2025, so a Feb. 23, 2026 termination decision is chronologically coherent. I cannot reconcile the 2026-04-14 date with the record I retrieved, and I lean toward the Feb. 23, 2026 date. This should be verified against the PTAB docket before relying on either figure. (Note also that the earlier section attributed the IPR to "Apple Inc. v. Garin Toren"; the PTAB caption is Apple Inc. v. MessageLoud, Inc., with MessageLoud identified as the real party-in-interest.)

Summary

Key caveats:

1. No court has ruled on the merits of US 10,110,725 in any forum. The Apple case ended by stipulated dismissal with prejudice before claim construction; the Apple IPR never reached institution.
2. No publicly disclosed outcome, damages award, or license terms are available for either case.
3. The Apple dismissal with prejudice bars MessageLoud from refiling those same claims against Apple, but it does not resolve the patent's validity or scope against anyone else, and it does not itself estop any party.
4. I could not confirm any 2026 activity on the Samsung case, nor any appeal. If Samsung were dismissed on similar terms, the joint IPR dismissal pattern suggests the entire family dispute may have been resolved in the 2025–2026 window — but that is inference, not a documented fact.
5. Consistent with the earlier-generated sections, the litigation was brought by MessageLoud, Inc. itself (the operating entity that markets the messageLOUD® app), not by an acquired shell — which is why the Stanford NPE database classifies it as a "Product company."

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 10110725: IPR2025-01427. This proceeding is listed with a "Terminated" status, specifically "Procedural Termination," indicating it did not reach a Final Written Decision on the merits. This means that, regarding PTAB challenges, all claims of the patent remain untested on the merits.

IPR2025-01427 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Garin Toren

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-29 [cite: IPR2025-01427 — IPR — filed 2025-08-29]
• Status: Terminated (Procedural Termination) [cite: IPR2025-01427 — IPR — filed 2025-08-29, https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10110725](/patent/US10110725)/en] - The proceeding was terminated before a Final Written Decision on the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Information not found in public search results.
• Petition grounds: Information regarding specific claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the petition grounds were not found in the provided patent text or public search results for a procedurally terminated IPR.
• Institution decision: Information on an institution decision was not found, which is typical for a case that undergoes "Procedural Termination" as it often occurs before or in lieu of a formal institution decision.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued. The proceeding was procedurally terminated.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was procedurally terminated on 2026-04-14 [cite: IPR2025-01427 — IPR — filed 2025-08-29]. The specific reasons or terms of termination (e.g., settlement) are not publicly detailed in the available information.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This procedural termination means the patent's claims have not been subjected to a full PTAB review on the merits. Therefore, a defendant is not estopped from challenging the patent in a future IPR or in district court on any prior art grounds. The patent claims remain "live" for validity challenges.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US10110725 are UNTESTED in the context of AIA trial proceedings. The single IPR filed, IPR2025-01427, was procedurally terminated, meaning no claims were canceled or sustained through a PTAB Final Written Decision. This indicates that the patent owner has not yet had to defend the patent's validity on the merits before the PTAB.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since IPR2025-01427 was terminated without an institution decision or a Final Written Decision, neither the petitioner (Apple Inc.) nor its privies would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) or § 315(e)(2) from raising prior art grounds in a subsequent proceeding. All prior-art grounds that could have been raised are still available for potential future challenges by any party, including Apple Inc., should they choose to file another IPR.

The pattern shows only one IPR attempt so far. The fact that it was procedurally terminated, rather than resulting in a full trial or institution denial, suggests that a resolution (possibly a settlement or other agreement) occurred between the parties before the PTAB rendered a decision on the merits. The petitioner was Apple Inc., a major operating company, indicating that the patent was asserted against a significant player.

Recommended next steps

• Since IPR2025-01427 was procedurally terminated and no Final Written Decision was issued, there are no claims that have been invalidated by the PTAB. Therefore, there is no FWD to link to for canceled claims.
• There are no active PTAB proceedings pending for US10110725. The IPR2025-01427 proceeding concluded with a procedural termination on 2026-04-14 [cite: IPR2025-01427 — IPR — filed 2025-08-29].
• The absence of an adjudicated PTAB proceeding means that any defendant facing assertion of this patent still has all validity challenges available, including filing their own IPR.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10110725, starting with USPTO Assignment Search and cross-referencing sources.

Let me dig into the assignment records, correspondent data, and company status.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 10110725

Source note / limitation: I was able to retrieve the substance of the assignment chain from Google Patents' legal-events tab (which mirrors USPTO assignment records) and from the 2025 litigation/IPR record, but I was unable to retrieve the specific reel/frame numbers or the recording correspondent of record for the two post-issuance assignments. I am marking those fields "not retrieved" rather than guessing. Verify directly at USPTO Assignment Center or the legacy Assignment Search by searching patent number 10110725.

Inventors

• Garin Toren — sole named inventor. Address of record: New York, NY. He is the founder and CEO of the assignee company (messageLOUD), so his "employer at time of filing" was the assignee itself — this is a founder-inventor patent, not a corporate R&D-team patent. Public bio indicates he was previously part-owner and EVP of Americas at Striata, Inc. (secure electronic document delivery) before founding messageLOUD; he is South-African-born.

Pattern note: There is only one inventor, and he did not depart the assignee — he founded it and remains its principal (the company later rebranded toward "ping"). The "all inventors depart within 12 months" fire-sale precursor is not present here. The relevant pattern is the inverse: a single founder-inventor who still controls the entity that is now asserting.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: "Messageloud LLC" (per Google Patents: Original Assignee — Messageloud LLC; Current Assignee — Messageloud Inc.). Based in New York, NY (a later related patent lists messageLOUD Inc. addresses in both New York, NY and Tenafly, NJ).
• Primary line of business: mobile application software. The company shipped messageLOUD, a consumer/fleet app that automatically reads incoming texts, email, and messenger notifications aloud for drivers (Android at launch in late 2015, iOS later; marketed in 28 languages; sold on a subscription basis ~$1.99/mo). The asserted claims are the app's core functionality.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. Contemporaneous press (ITWeb 2015, Work Truck Online 2019, ForConstructionPros 2019) and an Applause case study document a commercially released, revenue-generating product, with Garin Toren quoted as CEO.
• Current status: Operating. PitchBook lists the company as "ping (Communication Software)", formerly known as messageLOUD, with recent patent activity including US‑10110725‑B1. It is the current assignee and the plaintiff in the 2025 suits. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition evidence surfaced.

Assignment timeline

Two post-issuance recordings appear in Google Patents' legal-events feed (drawn from USPTO assignment records). Reel/frame numbers and correspondents were not retrievable from public sources and are flagged as such.

• 2018‑06‑26 (executed) / recorded 2018‑06‑26 — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (inventor-to-company assignment)
  • Assignor: Toren, Garin
  • Assignee: messageLOUD LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal founder-to-entity assignment — the inventor formally conveyed his rights to the operating company. Not a fire-sale, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

• 2019‑02‑28 (executed) / recorded 2019‑02‑28 — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (appears to be an entity conversion / name change — LLC → Inc.)
  • Assignor: messageLOUD LLC
  • Assignee: MESSAGELOUD INC.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal reorganization / corporate conversion of the same operating business. The assignee names are stylistic variants of one company, not unrelated shells.

Note on name variants: The records show three surface forms — "Messageloud LLC," "messageLOUD LLC," and "MESSAGELOUD INC." These appear to be capitalization/entity-conversion variants of a single operating business, not a deliberately obfuscated chain of unrelated LLCs. This is a caution against reading NPE significance into the naming.

Also relevant (not a recorded patent-assignment, but part of the control picture): In the 2025 AIA proceedings, MessageLoud, Inc. appointed Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov (Customer No. 121957; Sergey Kolmykov, Reg. No. 47,713) as its PTAB counsel. This is litigation counsel, not the assignment correspondent of record, so it is not evidence for the "repeat assignment correspondent" signal — but it is a notable litigation-side data point (see NPE signals below).

Cross-reference checks performed:

• SEC filings: none found — the assignee family is private, so no 8‑K/10‑K privateering disclosure trail.
• Unified Patents / RPX asserter directories: no matching entry surfaced for "MessageLoud"/"Messageloud" as a listed NPE.
• Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists MessageLoud, Inc. as the patent asserter with the category "8 Product company" and NPE status "Practicing Entity" for case 6:25‑cv‑00185.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10110725
    2014 : Priority date Nov 21 2014
    2017 : Application filed by Messageloud LLC
    2018 : Patent issued Oct 23 2018
         : Toren assigns rights to messageLOUD LLC
    2019 : messageLOUD LLC converts to MESSAGELOUD INC
    2025 : Suits filed v Apple and Samsung
         : Apple files five related IPRs

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The patent never moved to a licensing-only vehicle with an "IP/Holdings/Ventures" suffix. It stayed inside the founder's operating company through the LLC→Inc. conversion (2018‑06‑26 and 2019‑02‑28 recordings). The assignee shipped a product (messageLOUD app) and the claims read on that product.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. None of the current or prior owners match the public NPE registries (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, etc.). MessageLoud is a new entrant to assertion activity, not a long-listed serial plaintiff.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT ESTABLISHED. I could not retrieve the recording correspondents for either assignment, so recurrence cannot be established. (Do not confuse this with PTAB counsel of record, Kroub Silbersher & Kolmykov, which is litigation representation, not the assignment recording agent.)

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. Only two recordings, both between variants of the same business, over ~8 months. No ≥3-chain of distinct LLCs, no shared registered-agent address evidence, no common-principal shell cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The last recorded assignment (2019‑02‑28) predates the first infringement suits (filed May 5–6, 2025) by roughly six years. There is no last-minute assignment to set venue or standing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 evidence for the assignee.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No operating-company-to-NPE transfer surfaced; the inventor/CEO himself is the controlling principal, and the entity asserting is the entity that sells the product — the opposite of a privateering chain.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. (Unified Patents appears only indirectly — the "Unified Patents PTAB Data" feed is a data source, not an assignee.) Inverse signal absent: the patent is live and asserted, not neutralized.

Pro-assertion context worth recording (not one of the eight signals): In 2025 the owner filed a coordinated assertion campaign — MessageLoud, Inc. v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) (6:25‑cv‑00185, W.D. Tex., filed 2025‑05‑06) and MessageLoud, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (2:25‑cv‑00486, E.D. Tex., filed 2025‑05‑05) — over a five-patent family (US 9,591,117; 10,110,725; 10,277,728; 10,516,775; 11,316,964). Apple responded with a parallel IPR wave. This is a small operating company monetizing a narrow product line against two platform giants, and it has retained a boutique that regularly appears on the patent-owner/asserter side. That pattern is aggressive but is product-company assertion, not classic troll behavior — and the Stanford NPE database classifies the asserter as a "Product company."

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain begins and ends with the founder's own operating business: sole inventor Garin Toren assigned his rights to messageLOUD LLC (2018‑06‑26) and the entity converted to MESSAGELOUD INC. (2019‑02‑28); no recorded assignment ever moves the patent to a licensing-only shell, a known NPE, or a defensive aggregator. The assignee shipped a commercially released product (the messageLOUD app) whose read-aloud-on-arrival functionality embodies the asserted claims, and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database categorizes the asserter as a "Product company" (Practicing Entity). The current assertion campaign against Apple (filed 2025‑05‑06, W.D. Tex.) and Samsung (filed 2025‑05‑05, E.D. Tex.) is therefore a product company suing platform competitors, not an NPE, notwithstanding the six-year gap between the last assignment and the first suit.

Verification link: USPTO Assignment Center (search US 10110725). Reel/frame and correspondent fields could not be independently confirmed in this pass and should be pulled directly from that source.

Contradictions to flag against the earlier-generated sections

1. IPR caption. The previously generated PTAB section titled the proceeding "IPR2025‑01427 — Apple Inc. v. Garin Toren." Authoritative sources (PTACTS exhibit list, IPVerse/GreyB case page, Ex Parte petition analysis) caption it "Apple Inc. v. MessageLoud, Inc." The respondent/patent owner is the corporate assignee, not the individual inventor. The earlier caption is an error.
2. IPR termination date. The earlier section states the IPR was "procedurally terminated on 2026‑04‑14." The GreyB/IPVerse docket records a Termination Decision — "Dismissal Prior to Institution of Trial" (35 U.S.C. § 314), dated Feb 23, 2026. These dates conflict; the Feb 23, 2026 entry is tied to a specific Board paper and should be preferred pending direct PTACTS confirmation.
3. Related proceeding mapping. The earlier section's "there is one AIA trial proceeding on file" understates the family activity: Apple filed five concurrent IPRs on 2025‑08‑29 — IPR2025‑01426 ('117), 01427 ('725), 01428 ('728), 01429 ('775), and 01430 (11,316,964) — per the petitions themselves.
4. Possibly relevant to outcome. The Apple district-court action was resolved on Nov 3, 2025 by an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss (6:25‑cv‑00185‑RP, W.D. Tex.), which Apple filed as Exhibit 1020 in the IPR — a venue/dismissal development the earlier sections did not capture and which likely bears on the subsequent IPR termination.

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 10110725, we will examine the references cited within the patent itself. The patent document explicitly discusses several prior art references in its "BACKGROUND SECTION OF THE INVENTION" and "Definitions" sections. The analysis below will provide details for these references and assess their potential anticipation of US10110725's claims.

Here are the most relevant prior art references discussed in US10110725:

1. US Patent Application Publication 2013/0275899

• Full Citation: US 2013/0275899 A1, "Limited-distraction user interfaces for mobile devices," Inventor: Timothy R. Johnson et al., Assignee: [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130275899A1/en]
• Publication/Filing Date: Published October 24, 2013. Application filed April 22, 2013. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130275899A1/en]
• Brief Description: This publication discloses a "limited-distraction user interface that includes providing for display fewer selectable user interface objects than are displayed in a non-limited user interface for the respective application, and in accordance with a determination that the device is not being operated in a limited distraction context, provides a non-limited user interface for the respective application." [cite: US10110725B1]
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US 2013/0275899 potentially anticipates aspects of US10110725 related to adapting a user interface for a limited-distraction environment. However, US10110725 distinguishes itself by stating that US 2013/0275899 "relies on substantial input from the user even in the limited-distraction context, making it difficult for a user to use a mobile phone in such context." [cite: US10110725B1]
  Therefore, claims in US10110725, particularly those emphasizing "determining without any input by a user" and "informing the user without any input by the user" (e.g., Claims 1, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 26, 27, 29), distinguish US10110725 from US 2013/0275899's reliance on substantial user input. Specifically, the "reading aloud" aspect, especially when initiated without user input or as a default action (as in sub-step (i) of many independent claims), goes beyond merely displaying fewer selectable objects and requiring user interaction.

2. US Patent 8,364,183

• Full Citation: US 8,364,183 B1, "Cell phone busy key," Inventor: Jeffrey B. Harris. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8364183B1](/patent/US8364183B1)/en]
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued January 29, 2013. Application filed September 26, 2011. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8364183B1/en]
• Brief Description: This patent discloses "A cell phone which has been modified by the addition of software which responds to the press of one or more Busykeys by automatically sending a pre-typed text message to the sender of the latest text message just received or automatically answering an incoming call immediately upon pressing the Busy key and playing a pro-recorded audio message." [cite: US10110725B1]
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US 8,364,183 describes handling incoming communications in a "busy" context. However, US10110725 differentiates itself by noting that this prior art "do[es] not allow a person to respond to a text or a call other than by sending a pre-typed text message and still require substantial input from the user since the user has to choose and press on a Busykey button." [cite: US10110725B1]
  Claims in US10110725 that involve analyzing the content of the message (e.g., Claims 7, 18, 26, 27, 29) and then reading aloud the body of the actual message (e.g., Claims 1, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 26, 27, 29) are distinct from merely sending pre-typed messages or playing pre-recorded audio. The "without any input by a user" for initial notification and subsequent reading of the message body also distinguishes US10110725 from the "Busykey" activation.

3. US Patent 8,526,973

• Full Citation: US 8,526,973 B1, "Cell phone busy key," Inventor: Jeffrey B. Harris. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8526973B1](/patent/US8526973B1)/en]
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued September 3, 2013. Application filed December 3, 2012. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8526973B1/en]
• Brief Description: Same as US 8,364,183: "A cell phone which has been modified by the addition of software which responds to the press of one or more Busykeys by automatically sending a pre-typed text message to the sender of the latest text message just received or automatically answering an incoming call immediately upon pressing the Busy key and playing a pro-recorded audio message." [cite: US10110725B1]
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US 8,364,183, this patent describes a "Busykey" system. The same distinctions apply: US10110725's claims concerning content analysis and reading the actual message body aloud without initial user input (e.g., Claims 1, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 26, 27, 29) are not anticipated by the "Busykey" system's pre-typed or pre-recorded responses requiring user activation.

4. US Patent 8,359,014

• Full Citation: US 8,359,014 B1, "Cell phone busy key," Inventor: Jeffrey B. Harris. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8359014B1](/patent/US8359014B1)/en]
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued January 22, 2013. Application filed September 26, 2011. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8359014B1/en]
• Brief Description: Same as US 8,364,183 and US 8,526,973: "A cell phone which has been modified by the addition of software which responds to the press of one or more Busykeys by automatically sending a pre-typed text message to the sender of the latest text message just received or automatically answering an incoming call immediately upon pressing the Busy key and playing a pro-recorded audio message." [cite: US10110725B1]
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent also describes the "Busykey" system. The same arguments for non-anticipation by US10110725's claims apply as for US 8,364,183 and US 8,526,973. The core distinguishing features remain the automatic, input-free notification and reading of actual message content, rather than pre-programmed responses triggered by user input.

The obviousness of US patent 10110725 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 can be analyzed by combining the teachings of the prior art references cited within the patent itself, along with general knowledge in the art. The patent addresses the problem of allowing users to receive and interact with messages (text, email, messenger application messages) while engaged in activities like driving, exercising, or working, where visual and manual interaction with a mobile phone is hazardous or inconvenient.

A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) in mobile communication user interfaces, as of the priority date of November 21, 2014 [cite: Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.) 2014-11-21], would be motivated to create solutions that reduce distraction and manual input for mobile device users in these "limited-distraction environments."

Prior Art References:

The patent explicitly discusses two sets of prior art:

1. US 2013/0275899: This patent application discloses a "limited-distraction user interface" that provides fewer selectable user interface objects than a non-limited interface when a device is determined to be operating in a limited-distraction context. [cite: US 2013/0275899] The US10110725 patent critiques this prior art for still relying on "substantial input from the user even in the limited-distraction context, making it difficult for a user to use a mobile phone in such context." [cite: US 2013/0275899]
2. U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,364,183, 8,526,973, and 8,359,014 (Busykey patents): These patents describe a cell phone modified with software that responds to a "Busykey" press by automatically sending a pre-typed text message to the sender of the latest text message or automatically answering an incoming call and playing a pre-recorded audio message. [cite: U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,364,183, 8,526,973, and 8,359,014] The US10110725 patent critiques these patents for not allowing responses beyond pre-typed messages and still requiring "substantial input from the user since the user has to choose and press on a Busykey button." [cite: U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,364,183, 8,526,973, and 8,359,014]

Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claims:

The independent claims of US10110725 (Claims 1, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18 for methods; Claims 26, 27, 29 for systems; Claim 30 for non-transitory computer readable storage medium) can be considered obvious based on the following combination of prior art and common general knowledge:

Combination of References and Motivation:

A PHOSITA, motivated to address the shortcomings of the cited prior art—specifically the need for "substantial input" [cite: US 2013/0275899] in limited-distraction environments (US 2013/0275899) and the inflexibility of pre-typed or pre-recorded responses (Busykey patents [cite: U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,364,183, 8,526,973, and 8,359,014])—would seek to develop a more truly hands-free and dynamic communication system.

1. Context-Awareness and Hands-Free Operation:

   • US 2013/0275899 establishes the concept of a "limited-distraction user interface" based on a determination of the device operating in a "limited distraction context." [cite: US 2013/0275899] This directly corresponds to the "user is engaged in an activity" element of the claims.
   • The Busykey patents introduce automatic audio responses in a "busy" context. [cite: U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,364,183, 8,526,973, and 8,359,014]

   A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the context-awareness of US 2013/0275899 with the audio interaction of the Busykey patents to provide information more dynamically and with even less user input. The objective would be to further reduce the "substantial input" [cite: US 2013/0275899] identified as a limitation in US 2013/0275899.

2. Dynamic Message Content Reading Aloud:

   • Given the prior art's use of audio messages (Busykey patents [cite: U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,364,183, 8,526,973, and 8,359,014]), it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to employ readily available Text-to-Speech (TTS) technology (which was widespread and mature prior to 2014 for accessibility and voice assistant features on mobile devices). TTS would allow the system to dynamically "read aloud" the identity of the sender, the subject of an email, and the body of various messages (text, email, messenger application messages), rather than being limited to pre-recorded audio. This directly addresses the inflexibility and limited information delivery of the Busykey patents.
   • The "determining without any input by a user that a message has arrived" and "informing the user without any input by the user that the... message has arrived from a sender by reading at least aloud identity of the sender" (Claim 1, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18) are direct applications of combining existing notification mechanisms with TTS technology in a hands-free context. Message parsing (analyzing content) to extract sender, subject, and body is a standard software function necessary for TTS, as described in the patent's definitions. [cite: the step of analyzing]

3. Default Reading Aloud (or on Command) and Minimal User Input:

   • The choice between "allowing the user time to take an affirmative action to stop reading aloud... and in accordance with not receiving an input... reading aloud" (i.e., reading by default) or "allowing the user time to take an affirmative action to command reading" (i.e., reading on command) (Claims 1, 7, 14, 16, 17) represents common user interface design choices for voice-driven systems aiming to optimize for convenience and safety in hands-free environments. Given the motivation to minimize "substantial input" [cite: US 2013/0275899], providing a default action or a simplified input mechanism (like gestures, as described in the patent's detailed description for Drive Mode [cite: FIG. 10]) would be an obvious design decision for a PHOSITA.

4. Unified Queuing for Multiple Message Types (Claim 18, 29):

   • The patent notes that a "person may receive different types of messages, including emails, text messages, and messages/notifications from a messenger application." [cite: the person] To comprehensively address the problem of managing these various message types in a hands-free, limited-distraction environment, a PHOSITA would be motivated to unify their handling. Combining these different message streams into a "single queue... based on receipt time to be read aloud regardless of the type of the message" (Claim 18, also reflected in system Claim 29) is an obvious aggregation of known data queuing techniques applied to a common problem of handling disparate real-time notifications. This provides a coherent and simplified auditory experience for the user.

5. Specific Contextual Adaptations (e.g., Driving Mode, No Screen Display in Claim 17):

   • The patent states that "a person may be driving, and the use of a mobile phone, either for talking or texting, can be hazardous." [cite: a person] Given this recognized hazard and the teachings of a "limited-distraction user interface" (US 2013/0275899 [cite: US 2013/0275899]), it would be an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA to completely suppress visual information display on the screen when the user is driving a vehicle (Claim 17), relying entirely on audio output. This directly enhances safety and is a straightforward application of existing principles of context-aware UI and hands-free operation to a specific, high-risk scenario.

Conclusion:

The methods and systems claimed in US10110725 would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of invention. The combination of:

• The concept of limited-distraction user interfaces (US 2013/0275899 [cite: US 2013/0275899]).
• Automatic audio responses to incoming communications (U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,364,183, 8,526,973, and 8,359,014 [cite: U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,364,183, 8,526,973, and 8,359,014]).
• Well-known text-to-speech (TTS) technology and standard software development practices (message parsing, queuing, application management) for mobile devices.

would lead to the claimed invention. The motivation for such a combination arises from the clear and recognized need in the art to overcome the limitations of prior solutions by providing a safer, more convenient, and comprehensive hands-free communication experience for users engaged in activities that limit their ability to interact visually or manually with mobile devices. The various modes (Drive, Active, Work) and specific features like a single message queue or suppressed screen display in driving mode are all logical extensions and design choices for a PHOSITA aiming to achieve this overarching goal.